Dr Jim Murray National Qualifications Authority of Ireland

1. Putting the Framework in place: Positioning, Naming and Quality Assuring Awards in the NFQ Dr Jim Murray National Qualifications Authority of Ireland Framework Implementation Network Meeting 21 January 2008

2. Overview Positioning Awards in the NFQ Mechanism: Learning outcomes/Programme Descriptors Process: Mapping Programme Descriptors to the NFQ Naming Awards Framework principles Quality Assurance implications

3. Positioning Awards in the NFQ 1 How do we do it? Simple answer! Simple process! - Through learning outcomes statements written at the award/programme level (award/programme descriptors) and - Through mapping award/programme descriptors against either: Framework award-type descriptors (for major awards) fixed at particular levels, e.g. the Honours Bachelor degree is always at Level 8 Level indicators for smaller awards on a ‘best fit’ basis

4. Positioning Awards in the NFQ 2 So there we are, it’s all done and dusted No great difficulties SORTED!!!

5. Positioning Awards in the NFQ 3 Or is it? What is superficially simple in theory is a good deal more complicated when you get down to doing it in practice In reality, there are many problematical assumptions hidden in my formula for successful levelling of awards

6. Positioning Awards in the NFQ 4 The hidden assumptions that descriptors exist for awards/programmes that if they exist in some shape or form they are written in terms which are ‘mappable’ to the NFQ – i.e. in terms of the NFQ’s 8 sub-strands of knowledge, skill and competence that programme designers even consider it necessary or desirable to write programme descriptors in Framework related terms – is this institutional policy?

7. Positioning Awards in the NFQ 5 The hidden assumptions (contd.) institutional autonomy/institutional branding also comes into the mix practice of writing institutional descriptors that do not clearly line up against the Framework already exists use of ‘Dublin Descriptors’ rather than NFQ descriptors as basis for institutional descriptors can obscure mapping to NFQ and hide access, transfer and progression dimension of the NFQ pat formulas also hide the really difficult issue of judging how smaller awards (even when they have programme descriptors) map to level how many outcomes or sub-strands of knowledge, skill and competence should you have in a smaller award to assign it to a level?

8. Positioning Awards in the NFQ 6 In reality, then, the whole business is not so straightforward after all For the practitioner, there are a range of technical and institutional policy matters to be negotiated How should these matters be addressed?

9. Positioning Awards in the NFQ 8 Core Principles Basic responsibility for programmes/awards resides with providers/awarding bodies same bodies need to have their own institutional policies and approaches in relation to NFQ implementation That said, some elements of what should go into these policies and approaches are essential/unavoidable: Every programme leading to an award in the NFQ should have some form of high level programme descriptor Ideally, for ease of mapping to the NFQ, the descriptor should be expressed in Framework outcomes terms, i.e., it should use the NFQ’s generic outcomes: the 8 sub-strands of knowledge, skill and competence

10. Positioning Awards in the NFQ 9 Once in place, it is possible to reference or map such descriptors to the NFQ’s award-type descriptors for the major awards and then, automatically, to a level in the NFQ It is possible, as some universities have done, to have one’s own institutional descriptors for the major award-types – based on ‘Dublin Descriptors’ of the Bologna Framework for First, Second and Third Cycle qualifications (Bachelors, Masters, Doctorate descriptors) these map fairly easily to NFQ award-type descriptors as they are closely linked to each other; Iinstitutional/major award descriptors not much help for positioning smaller awards: the certificates and diplomas that make up the minor, special purpose and supplemental awards and which are the most troublesome to position in the Framework they require their own programme descriptors that reference NFQ outcomes

11. Positioning Awards in the NFQ 10 To sum up then, What is needed is an institutional commitment to NFQ implementation involving a policy or approach to writing programme/awards descriptors for all programme/awards and that such descriptors are drafted in terms that are compatible with the NFQ outcome descriptors

12. Naming Awards 1 Some Principles Responsibility for naming awards resides with awarding bodies Input from providers also important All awarding bodies have signed up to the National Framework of Qualifications and its implementation Fundamental aim of NFQ is to bring coherence and transparency to qualifications system and to help learners and society at large understand what particular qualifications mean and represent and how they relate to each other By signing up to the NFQ, awarding bodies and providers have signaled their willingness and commitment to bring about this coherence and transparency how they name awards is an essential part of this undertaking NFQ implementation cannot take place in the fullest sense without participation of awarding bodies and providers in bringing about a consistent approach to the naming of awards

13. Naming Awards 2 Major Awards On the surface the naming of the major awards is straightforward as they follow from or grow out of the agreed major award-type titles: Higher Certificate; Ordinary Bachelor Degree; Honours Bachelor Degree; Higher Diploma; Postgraduate Diploma; Masters Degree; Doctorate; Higher Doctorate hence Level 6: Higher Certificate in Business Studies Level 7: (Ordinary) Bachelor of Arts Level 8: (Honours) Bachelor of Engineering; Higher Diploma (in Computing) Level 9: Postgraduate Diploma in Education; Master of Science Level 10: Doctor of Philosophy (PhD); Doctor of Science (DSc)

14. Naming Awards 3 Major Awards (contd.) Of course, it is never that straightforward! All sorts of issues come into the mix Branding Seen, for example, in universities reluctance to use the higher certificate award-type But what of those affiliated Colleges of Education who do want to use it? And what of the occasional 2 year programme that exists in the university sector that has level 6 outcomes? What should that be called? Perceived status of awards Seen, for example, in HETAC sector’s reluctance to include ‘Ordinary’ in Level 7 Degree titles The issue of distinguishing between diplomas that are postgraduate in time as opposed to postgraduate in level – the Higher Diploma and the Postgraduate Diploma Proliferation of Denominated degree titles versus rationalizing of titles around a small number of generic degree titles

15. Naming Awards 3 Major Awards (contd.) These are tricky issues Crucial to remember, however, that the aim of the NFQ is to bring about coherence, transparency and comparability to the system of qualifications Thus, all naming practices and conventions should be informed by these values – as far as possible the major award-type of a particular major award should be reflected in its title Where there are particular local customs that are unlikely to change, and are not instructive in NFQ terms, it is important for awarding bodies and providers to provide information to learners and other interested parties so that particular named awards are clearly understood in Framework terms information on award-type, level and progression opportunities should be made available in relation to each award in a range of sources including prospectuses, faculty/school publications and on college/university web pages; diploma supplements

16. Naming Awards 4 Smaller (Non-Major) Awards With regard to smaller awards, there is an agreed approach between universities and Qualifications Authority All minor, special purpose and supplemental awards are to be called certificates or diplomas Certificates are those non-major awards with a learning volume of less than 60 ECTS credits Diplomas are those non-major awards with a learning volume of greater than 60 ECTS – normally, the upper limit should not exceed 120 ECTS credits; beyond that the award is creeping into major award territory Certificate and Diploma non-major awards can be made at any level at which a university makes awards Different approach being used by other awarding bodies in distinguishing non-major certificate and diplomas – done on a NFQ level basis HETAC now changing its policy – will make certificate and diploma non-major awards at all levels apart from Level 6

17. Quality Assurance Implications Hitherto, NFQ implementation has not featured heavily in Universities’ QA processes But this is changing: new IUQB/IUA Framework for quality in Universities is committed to enhancing Framework implementation process through: including Framework implementation issues in formal programme approval processes and unit reviews, particularly the positioning of particular qualifications in the NFQ ‘with sufficient information provided to allow .. reviewers to understand the appropriateness of the level and type of the award’ – IUQB/IUA Framework for Quality, p. 54. IUQB also exploring the possibility of using external examining system to assess the extent to which learning outcomes are achieved by students in particular programme Reflects general commitment of Universities to Framework which is also evident in establishment of this Network

18. Conclusion We are now reaching the stage where we are getting into ‘serious’ implementation of the NFQ in the universities and associated colleges It is not a simple task – demands cultural change and hard work! If done properly, however, it will make qualifications more meaningful to learners and society at large Framework Implementation Network offers an opportunity to universities and colleges to work together to address and solve practical difficulties in such challenging areas as writing learning outcomes at the programme level, accurately positioning awards in the NFQ, and naming them in a consistent and meaningful manner